Mark sent me 5 valances 1 for dad's car a couple for Mark and Myself.. The latter we will be doing the lower GT conversion on..

My question is why are these different and what is what?Click to view attachment

I am stumped- they should all be identical. I will await the many, many much more informed guys to chime in.

I just assumed they were identical. I didn’t even look before I packed them up. I think two are off an early car and the other three are late.

all front steel valances are the same EXCEPT the flared steel one for the m471 car

Just a couple of guesses as to why different - back 2 vs front 3 - would be:

A. that one version could be aftermarket ones, or

B. that they could've changed the tooling &/or OEM supplier during the 70-76 MY production run, or

C. that they had to make slight changes when they went to the late 75-76 MY big bumper cars - from the earlier 70-74 MY steel bumpers.

I know - that's 3 - not a couple (2) - but either consider a "bonus answer" or that I was just loose with the terminology!

Maybe some folks with RD &/or other aftermarket steel valances & owners of 70-74 & 75-76 can post similar pix at the ends/sides of their valances to see which it might be.

The big difference appears to be that the back 2 are more curved profile on the ends, while the front 3 are more of an angle - so why I'm thinking that the change at the ends might have been to fit the profile of the steel or BUB bumper above, or else just that one (3?) was easier for the aftermarket supplier to stamp out.



PS Ben & Mark - check their fitment against whichever bumpers that they'll be paired with to get the best mating & lines, if you hadn't already thought of that.

Tom
///////

The Doc's recollection is what I recall. Feel somewhat vindicated in my own mind.

I'm pretty sure 2 are from early - 70&71, 2 are from mid year 74's and one from a 75. Ben, show us some better pics.

Most of these will get modified for center GT opening and extensions to match the flares so I told Ben I don't care which ones I get back.

I'm sure at least 4 of the valences are original to the car, not aftermarket and the 5th is probably original as well. I've never seen or heard of an aftermarket steel valence.

I can't imagine making stamping dies for a front balance is a cheap endeavor so imagine they are all oem.

Mark -

While it's true that RD doesn't have them in their catalog now, but they may have back with the prior owner in the USA, & IIRC AA used to carry some years ago (but not sure of their source it they did), & for sure back in the late 70's & early 80's the old Performance Products (Automation) catalogues had the choice of Porsche or a cheaper steel aftermarket valance at some point plus fiberglass ones, as well as at some of the other plethora of aftermarket shops selling Porsche parts had them back then.

They probably didn't keep them up in steel aftermarket because the fiberglass valances & front chin spoilers (LE & other profiles) were more popular, didn't rust, & were 1/2 the price or more of steel of either type.


Tom
///////

Ben -

Those dies wear out after so many stampings, & the 73 & 74 MYs were the 2 highest production of all MYs + 70, 71 & 72 - so they may well have been worn out or modified by the time they got to the 75-76 MYs.

PS - if they did change the OEM supplier of the valances sometime in the 70-76 MY run, they the new supplier would have to come up with their own dies, because the other old supplier wouldn't turn theirs over. From Mark's commentary of the sources of them - then the switch could have been at 74 MY: "...2 are from early - 70&71, 2 are from mid year 74's and one from a 75...." - so the front 3 were probably 74 & 2 75s, back 2 were 70-71s per Mark's math.

PSS - Perhaps there was more or less material, easier stamping &/or release from dies, better airflow, &/or other design reasons why it would change. .... or it could be aftermarket?

It's clearly obvious from your pic that they have 2 different end profiles on them - so there is a difference in valances - the only question is why or from where!?

I postulated 3 possibilities & now the others with any of those possibilities on their cars need to take 5 to pic & post to answer your question more definitively.

I'm curious to see what the source of the differences were myself!


Cheers!
Tom
///////

Tom,

Yes I agree to all of that.. I wonder if Pete is working on front valances and could give some feedback..

Yes Ben -

They already have the side rocker panels, & adding the front & rear valances (both notched & early port-hole/snow-plow style rear) would be much needed NLA body parts for their RD catalogue.

Of course they'd need to have the front valance differences conundrum figured out to know which or both to repro.




Tom
///////

@peteyd

Any insight to the differentiate the front valances?

i went through all I have including a nos .. all the same profile..that being said I have one off of 914-6 30 something .. I will check profile ...it does not hove the 90 lip on the back leading edge,...as the rear valance had no reinforcements on the rear 2 attachment points......Tom T where is the proof ?? I have automotion cats ...fibedrglass only

I'd love to see a better pic. When I first saw them I thought

1) 2 are rear valances (the two closest to the wall/box)

2) or 2 are limited edition front valances.

Nope

From the pic it looks like the back two are turned around.

I agree even I have a hard time telling which is what, Ben.

I will take a better one this evening

Could it just be a different angle? I don’t think there were any differences (at least on the small bumpered 914s).

I have approximately 6 of these.. all touched, and painted... but original and not beat up. They all are the same profile and I've never heard of there being different profiles or years? weird

I personally do not know 100% if there is more than one version. I would lean toward saying that there isn't.

I personally doubt that there was more than one piece of tooling built while the 914 was in production. If there was wear in the tooling, they would have kept running it. I have seen this on the 356 and the 911. We have taken many cars apart and have noticed that later cars with the same part are more washed out. These areas would be in the tight radii.

Also, as an entry level car, it wouldn't make sense to put more money into tooling with no payback.

The differences shown in Ben's photos do not indicate wear.

Here is my NOS panel. I have designed the tooling, but plans to produce it haven't been made yet. It is one large piece of tooling!



Pete

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Glad you have that part for a - one of these days - reproduction.

Thanx for posting that one Pete!

I too have two NOS F & R valances for my resto courtesy of George a few years ago (1 each, & not free nor even cheap BTW!), but they're packed away for our ongoing House+Garage/Office resto - as are my old aftermarket parts catalogs.

So - No - I'm not going to friggin' dig them out just to prove a point on one of the possible explanations on the differences.

If Pete has an NOS one to repro the parts eventually, then there is where the future parts availability lies!

I'd think that Ben would know when he compared them, that they weren't 2 upside down/reversed (no differences on the ends L to R as you can see from Pete's NOS one in the pic above).

Am I right Ben?

So there obviously were/are differences in the two end types - as can be clearly seen by the original pic - & it goes beyond any "lip" differences.

The back 2 are clearly rounded in the top edge profile - while the front 3 are likewise very clearly a flatter & an angled top edge with a bent & not a worn down tooling rounded edge - as the angle is an intentional bent.

We cannot see the rest of the back 2 out to the front edge - like in the topmost of the front 3 - so we cannot compare the shape difference(s) there - if any.

Maybe Ben can take another pic showing the entire end profile & post it for us, to see if there are more differences there?

I suggested that one possibility could be that the front 3 were a different profile for the big bumper 75-76 MY 914s, because the front profile out to the end is more angular & may stick out further - while I'm GUESSING that the hidden back 2 MAY be a smooth rounded profile - as shown in Pete's pic of his NOS one (which I recall from my original one one my early 8/31/72 build date 73 2L) - & is not trying to match a BUB mounted above it.

Mark E's. post of the source of 914 MYs for the 2 vs 3 SEEMS to support that conjecture.

As for new tooling - again, if they got a new OEM supplier/stamper for these parts, then yes, they would need to make new dies/tooling, because the old supplier is certainly NOT going to turn over their tooling property to their replacements who just aced them out of business! Instead, they'd probably hang onto it until such time as they can legally produce replacement parts on their own.

Likewise - when a major or facelift redesign is done, then new dies/tooling would be made for any affected parts, as with the change to the angular projecting big black rubber bumper models of 75-76 MPH, since they were required to supply the 7 mph crash resistant bumpers in the USA per US-DOT regulations - & having the lower fascia/valance profiles come out to better meet these new further extended bumpers would help "hide" or lessen the "big ugly bumper" effect. The rounded & sloped back one in Pete's pix would make the BUB look even bigger & more obtrusive, than if the lower valance came out further.

Also, in 1973-74 when the transitions from the transitional US-DOT regulations' 3-5 mph bumper guards ("Tits"), to the new 7 mph regs were being designed - I don't think that VW-Porsche, Karmann nor Porsche thought that the sales of 914s & all Porsches were going to drop off so much due to the currency exchanges changes of that period.

After all, they were making 1970=23001, 1971=16299, 1972=24778, 1972=28403, 1973=17012 of all versions of 914s built by year (note that these are mixed model years, since production is listed as calendar years) - so why think that the parade of sales would fall off!?

http://www.914world.com/specs/productionnumbers.php

Also note that that represents 109,493 914s - & so that's about 110,000 valances stamped plus 10-15% as spare parts - so perhaps 120K - 126K total production, & the dies/tooling would be pretty tired & worn by that point. Note that some of the 1974 production would be BUB 75 cars, so somewhat less than 120-126K, if the change came with the bumper change - but 100K+ stampings is still a long production run for steel tooling.

Ergo - I'm thinking that the sharply angled profile at the mid-section of the pan of the top one of the 3 showing the full profile is made to match the profile of a 75-76 big rubber bumper sitting/mounted above it - as my top pick at this point! It is not a rounded smooth pan, but rather comes to an angular point a few inches out from the back face - as does the angled corner of the big bumper mounted above it. There may also be a mating surface/edge issue which they needed to solve at the top of the valance to bottom of big bumper surfaces' juncture.

Angled:
Click to view attachment

~ vs ~

Rounded:
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Dave Cheek has an original 75 but it has the spoiler option (as do a few others int the O&H Forum's The Few, the Rare..." nailed topic, & there is a blue one which may have the steel front valance but I can't tell from the pix below - even when enhanced close up; & Steve Gaglione has an original 73 - - so maybe they can be persuaded to to a pic of the end profiles of their front valances for comparison?

Click to view attachment
- 76 2L of member nj91462 - possibly the angled front valance, can't tell much from even this cropped & enhanced blow-up of his posted pic on the 9th page of Few/Rare.

Click to view attachment
- Dave Cheeks with the common 75-76 era factory spoiler (not the LE spoiler).


Click to view attachment
- Steve G's 73 2L - clearly rounded ends - not angular.

Click to view attachment
- Jaime in KY 73 1.7 - appears to also be rounded, not angular.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
- My Buddy Jerry's 71 1.7 - appears to be rounded, not angular.

.

All of the above 5 914s are from the O&H Forum's nailed thread "The Few, the Rare ..." - along with a couple of other 75-76 cars which appear to have the same spoiler as Dave's:

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=101921

So instead of trying to argue with me for the fun of it - why don't you folks go out & take pix of your front valances from ALL MYs 70-74 & 75-76 - & then post them here for comparison - with a note of what year & bumper style (incl. backdated 75-76s with steel bumpers), & whether it's a known original, replacement or unknown.


Tom
///////

This is clearly coming to a point with 3-bend/fold lines - rather than the smooth rounded surface in Pete's pic of his NOS one -

Click to view attachment
- cropped from Ben's pic with angled area circled in yellow.


Tom
///////

The front valance on the 73 sahara beige car.

Thanx Steve -

As I thought, it's the smoothly rounded type.


Tom
///////

I cannot remember exactly when it switched but Jeep CJ tubs always had the embossed "Jeep" on the tub on the p&s sides. Right around the end of the CJs they started losing that stamp and the community calls the "Joop"s. The "e" lost it's middle and Jeep dngaf and just put stickers over the Joop.

better hurry .... facts / fiction abound

Ok here are some more pictures.. You can clearly see that they all fit into eachother so the same stampings except the corners..

One thing to note as I am heavily involved in manufacturing for my day job oh and I my business. With that I get to see all aspects of the inner workings. Very typically dies are owned by the oem( such as porsche VW in this case) and a contractor will do all the stampings at their facility.. At least that is how it happens here in South eastern Wisconsin.


Either way it really doesn't matter but I know for a fact no contractor/outside firm would be doing change orders without approval s.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Interesting but other than the one for your Dad's car, they will all be So in the end, it makes no difference to me.

mud, snow collector,,change trim at angle..

Actually 2 only 4 pictured there.

Just a fact here.

Steel will stress relieve over time.

How old are these things....cold....hot summers...?

As we return to dust the front valances return to ......Rust.

Triangle one makes me wonder if it was on a VERY early car. I know they had some differences. I remember that some of them had covered tanks. The infamous prototype 914-6 had all kinds of strange items not found on production cars.

One of them did come off my '70 and I'm 100% sure it was original to the car. PO removed it and a bunch of other stuff to install aftermarket but put it all aside. He was the original owner.The car had a lot of unusual (to me) early parts. I think it's the one with the 2 notches for aftermarket fog lights -

Umm not to shape shift..at least not growing to straight line..

No pic but I rounded the corners on my front valance to clear 7" rims and the turn radius.

Just a pic reference but here is another early orig 70 car that a club member owned.

Maybe Camp could reach out to Jim and see what he remembers

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/7638164-post1.html

Jim sold it to a vw guy who tried to sell it a few years ago

Hey Ben, Thanx for those pix.

I think that VW-Porsche were the primes, with either Karmann or another OEM sub-contractor of either Porsche, VW, VW-Porsche or Karmann being the outside producer - or Karmann could've done it in-house themselves. Karmann had a long history before the 914s, as a subcontractor to build 356s & 911s (maybe some 912s?) & parts for same.

It's similar to the outsourcing which we do in the construction industry (going on 53 years in it myself now - geez I'm an old fart! LOL), where we'll get shop drawing for structural steel, etc. in for approval - so I agree that the maker of the valances would not have just made changes on their own, but rather upon the direction of VW-Porsche, & Porsche had bought out VW from their VW-Porsche JV in 1974 - so maybe directly from Porsche.

Can you please take another pic with the 2 types/profiles outside face up & both showing one in front of the other?

From the backside pic above it looks like the same smooth & continuously rounded end profile as in Pete's NOS one.

So far nobody has posted a pic showing their original 75-76 valance to check & see if it matches the angular front end profile of the top of the 3 which I'd circled in my post above.

So it's still a conundrum of why & where that different shape comes from!?

Anyone out there with an original 1975 or 1976 MY OE/OEM steel front valance to offer up a pic at the ends & another one outside face up - for comparison?


Cheers!
Tom
///////

Click to view attachment
- Repeat of where 3 bend lines meet at the front corner with point at the highlight or bright spot.

I will take some more.. I am speculating that the straight cut valances are early ones and the dies were changed after they discovered that there could be tire rubbing issues.. That would have been an easy ECO for porsche to make and very little revision to the dies..

That seems to be backed up by a few folks that called me on it today.

I'm going to revive this thread with a few photos and opinions:

First photo is of Jeff Hines very early valance. You can see here the trailing edge comes down straight when compared to a later swooped edge valance:

Click to view attachment

We're currently working on a original six that we believe had that straight valance above but "trimmed" by the factory. In the following pictures you can see where we cleaned the edge "only" we did not cut or grind it. This had factory primer and paint on the edge. Here it is displayed alongside a later factory valance with the 90 degree edge on the swooped style. You can also see the bottom edge was slightly different.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Through this we surmise that there was an issue with the original straight valances. There may have been suspension interference during various wheel positions and angles. This was a mid-model (mid-valance model) band-aid fix until the production pieces came to the assembly line. I'm super happy we researched this and has Jeff as a resource here... we saved this early piece of history for this car.

We only found the one version but did make some fiberglass ones.